I was at an audiophile club meeting and I was talking to the owner. He had some European equipment he was selling and I asked him If the gear was a good value. He said that didn't really matter to audiophiles. He said you could buy gear half the price that would sound as good. I then asked him why they charge so much money for it. He said because they want to make money and the company knows people will pay it. Is this the reality of the audio market in 2012?
Is this a true statement about the audio Industry
- Thread starter taters
- Start date
The reality of any high-end market targeting collectors...the passionate 'collectors', buyers, will be a mix of discerning (and not so discerning). Separate out the non-discerning ones, and you've got an opportunity to generate real margin...does a Patek have 100,000 of parts in it? Does a bottle of wine have 10,000 of labor put into it? Perhaps, some of these products are 'priceless' to the right person because of rare SOTA quality...but there are always people who dont know the difference, have more money than sense, and get sold the wrong product at the wrong price.
The reality is that no high-end company is getting rich. An average company will maybe net a couple of million. Years ago, Madrigal and Krell were at the top of the heap with numbers bandied about in the range of 40-50 million. That's about what Sony makes in a day. Do I hear anyone coming down on the mass market companies for selling huge quantities of crap?
Question number two. Have you ever sat down and added up the costs for building products one at a time compared to when someone like Sony makes a million of a product?
Whatever the pricepoint, you likely can find something less expensive that sounds equally as good, so he wasn't wrong in his answer to you. I'm not sure that his answer makes a lot of sense in light of him selling equipment, but hey...maybe it's a new approach.
If this is the only aspect of equipment this person considers for such an appreciation you should look for another audiophile club.
Do not loose your time with such vague and childish comments. Audio is a mature industry and must be debated as such.
You know, car analogies abound in audio, and I'll resist making another one (say, comparing performance of a Subaru STi to a very expensive high performance luxury sports car and asking the rhetorical question why would anyone want to pay 10X or more for the almost the same acceleration, etc.).
But, this raises a slightly different issue to me, analogous to cars: that is, few of the 'flavor of the month' products have lasting value and are actually worth more after 5 years. I guess you could say, in things audio, that the 'technology' keeps improving, so that there is little value in older gear, but it is an interesting question to me, and not really what Taters asked.
Sure, Marantz 7 preamps, the various amps and the 10b fetch more money today than what they retailed for 50 years ago. Perhaps there are a few others, old Quads aren't expensive to buy restored but they are still a multiple of what they cost new, and that's probably true for most antiquarian equipment, e.g. old WE stuff, Klangsfilm, etc.
But, are there pieces made in the last 10 or 20 years that fit into that category? A couple of John Curl's early phono stages?
Not suggesting that high end doesn't have long term value, but it did get me to thinking....
But, this raises a slightly different issue to me, analogous to cars: that is, few of the 'flavor of the month' products have lasting value and are actually worth more after 5 years. I guess you could say, in things audio, that the 'technology' keeps improving, so that there is little value in older gear, but it is an interesting question to me, and not really what Taters asked.
Sure, Marantz 7 preamps, the various amps and the 10b fetch more money today than what they retailed for 50 years ago. Perhaps there are a few others, old Quads aren't expensive to buy restored but they are still a multiple of what they cost new, and that's probably true for most antiquarian equipment, e.g. old WE stuff, Klangsfilm, etc.
But, are there pieces made in the last 10 or 20 years that fit into that category? A couple of John Curl's early phono stages?
Not suggesting that high end doesn't have long term value, but it did get me to thinking....
Either you are making this up or the guy running the audio club is an idiot. If you are trying to sell audio gear, are you really going to tell people who are prospective buyers that they could buy other gear at half the price and it would sound just as good? I don’t think so unless you spent your formative years climbing into the little yellow school bus.
I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I meant to say the owner of the store where the audiophile event was held.
Did he point to the other stuff in his store that "sounded" as good at half the price? If he's got a huge stock of 'em or has to meet steep quotas, then he's being very astute! LOL!
In a world with cables that cost more than Mercedes (MIT, Transparent, Nordost, etc), I'd say this is correct. A 'hot product' at RMAF was a 10k USB cable- USB!
The often heard mantra from audiophiles: "it's all about the music", which in fact is bullroar. The aesthetic has a lot to do with it as does the badging. We all pay a hefty premium for the box and not just the innards, I would argue often times more for the box. Is the sound the most important aspect of equipment ownership? I'd like to think so but I'll be the first to admit that pride of owning a piece from one of the big boy companies weighs heavily as does the aesthetic. But as cool as some of the exotic amplifiers look and apparently sound, I can't quite understand how they can justify the $100K+ price tags. Feel free to disagree as many no doubt will.
Calling BS on this one. It's true that a majority of high end companies aren't "getting rich". But I would respectfully ask exactly what you would call rich? I'm pretty sure nobody is quite in Noel Lee's range. But there are companies who have built excellent business models and garnered a very loyal following. These companies ARE doing well.
I understand that people on this board are probably more well off than the general population. But I'm pretty sure even most people here would consider anyone who drives a Ferrari as "rich". (Dave Wilson)
Hi
Not much time to post lately .. I am there but inordinately busy (good things though) ... Agree with these posts. Price is a markof superiority in theluxury segment and our hobby belongs. Prices have come to equate performance in our hobby however vociferously we try to pretend of the contrary, we will too often, hear or read the almost condescending qualifying expression: "for its price" often for a $50,000 (and up) item!!!!
As for the "owner" agenda , i agree with Jack he is not impartial
Depends on what you define as being "rich"? ... I beg to differ the last time I woke up, poor people didn't drive Ferraris. or their equivalent. As in anything in life some make it and some don't. Some companies succeed, most don't ... In any industry or market.
From Gregadd ..
Indeed!
Pretty sure? Or know for a fact? Speculation doesn't count as a defense.
Also, Dave has been working full time at Wilson Audio for more than 25 years now. I know for a fact that his Ferrari isn't 25 years old. In other words, it doesn't matter how well off he was when he started the speaker business. He's been living off the fruits of THAT business for a very long time now. But, as a matter of fact, he was NOT as well off as he is now.
Dave's first speakers were built in his own home.
Regardless, he is just one example. There are others.
Similar threads
- Sticky
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |